3 ms·
So that's a little different argument, and more complex. Profit/loss is a weird thing in a non-profit. College Football (in the Power 5, and top tier group of
by salmo 5y ago
So that's a little different argument, and more complex. Profit/loss is a weird thing in a non-profit.
College Football (in the Power 5, and top tier group of 5) itself is very profitable. But the money is quickly spent on the program and to fund the program and the department as a whole.
Also, some stats there include Div II, III, etc. Programs without big TV deals, licensing revenue etc. do not make money from their athletic departments. Not a shocker or really what any of this is referring to.
But for the major programs, the money from licensing, TV rights, conference revenue sharing, etc. covers the basics for women's programs and less popular sports. Then it gets dumped along with booster $ into the CFB football facilities arms race, ever growing coaching salaries, and multimillion dollar buyouts of contracts.
This isn't totally unique to not-for-profit Universities either. Executive perks in non-profits are another way to make the year-end balance out. Government programs, and corporate departments dump cash at the end of their fiscal years to avoid losing the budget the next year.
- syops 5y agoMy claim was about most college sports programs and that the universities don’t profit from sports programs. Div II and Div III programs are relevant to my claim. When there is profit it gets dumped back into the athletic department. The university as a whole does not benefit in most cases. Given the mandatory fees that students pay to athletic departments, the stadiums built by taxpayer funds the argument that college sports generates lots of money for the university as a whole is wrong. Consider this. Take away the most profitable college sports program. Will that college be forced to increase tuition to cover the loss of money for non-athletic related expenses? The answer is no.